Bay Area News Group editorial: NRA's unhinged response disqualifies it from debate over gun control

Activist Medea Benjamin, of Code Pink, is led away by security as she protests during a statement by National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, left, during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting on Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 in Washington. The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

The ideas spouted by National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre in his disturbing statement Friday morning were so bizarre, so unhinged from reality, that the organization's leadership cannot be considered serious participants in the national discussion over gun rights.

An armed guard, possibly a volunteer, in every school? Where do we even begin?

This idea is an insult to Americans hoping the NRA would keep its promise to offer a "meaningful" contribution to the conversation in the wake of the slaughter of 27 people in Newtown.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said. We have 300 million guns in this country. If what LaPierre said were true, and more guns equalled less danger, there would be no gun violence in this country. Nancy Lanza was armed to the teeth, and her own weapons were used to murder her.

Both Columbine and Virginia Tech had armed guards -- as many as a third of public secondary schools already do, though not necessarily for the purpose of stopping gun violence -- and they did no good. We'd have to have 10, or 50 -- heck, why not 100? -- officers in each school to make a difference. And we know it can be difficult for even a well-trained police officer to shoot and kill an armed suspect. Often, innocent bystanders are hurt; in August, nine people were hit by crossfire when New York police tried to stop a gunman outside the Empire State Building.

LaPierre said we arm Secret Service agents and soldiers, so why not guards in every school, too? The man apparently has no understanding of the difference between a war zone and a school filled with young children and dedicated to teaching them how to live productively in the world.

And maybe that's the point. Maybe he genuinely believes the real problem is that the country is a war zone, and too few Americans share that world view. Maybe school uniforms should include bulletproof vests, and we ought to add target shooting to our standardized testing regime, too.

We bet that the vast majority of Americans don't see things that way, and never will. They don't want their children to live in a world ruled by fear and military-grade weaponry.

If it wasn't clear already, Friday's speech made the point extraordinarily well: The NRA is not interested in protecting Americans from gun violence; it has dictated gun policy in this nation for decades, and look at the results. The NRA is, first and foremost, dedicated to selling guns. Everything this wretched group's leaders say must be viewed through that lens.